Yep, read 2wd less off road oriented and cheaper....

Ford absolutely blew the Ranger...it went from two body styles and two bed lengths and a base of 28k to One body style, a small bed only , too much content and expensive ( Starting at 35k )....good truck but when I drive into a clients lot and see a lineup of Nissans and ask why...the answers were pretty glaring....its also dating pretty quickly...

The flex yes Mkt no so much so was mostly livery and hearses 

One thing is for sure: By already making a move on its plan to shrink its footprint in the international EV supply chain, the big shots at Stellantis are shootin' their employer in the foot and weakening its competitive position now and in the future

I give the engine people at Ford tremendous credit for creating the Coyote V8, given the original constraint that Jim Clark was working with. He was required to built an engine that would power both future F150’s and fit into transverse front wheel luxury Lincolns. This limited the bore centers to about 100 mm and compromised how large the engine family could become on the other end. Nevertheless, ford created a great engine with the current 5 liter utilizing the transfer lines designed for 100 mm bore centers and probably saved the Mustang platform along the way. Yes, you may be right that taking the trip to smaller bores and longer strokes may not be worth it but I am sure there is someone at Ford that has studied exactly that if for no other reason than understanding what other OEM’s might just do! rdselford

RAV4 is a compact while Ford tells us that  CE1 is midsized…

I would be curious to see the failure rates on 3.5 water pumps for earlier models compared to later model years. My 2017 was pretty much at the end of the lifespan for the 3.5 and I believe by that point, it was a pretty rock solid engine.    Just due to the nature of it being older with higher mileage, you're gonna see more stories of older 3.5s having issues, but I would be curious to see what the failure rate of a 2017/18 3.5 water pump is at 80k miles compared to what the failure rate for a 2009 3.5 would have been at 80k miles, but I don't know how we would access that data. 

Given that Ford has been saying it will have more interior room than a Rav4, a short hood would seem to be necessary to achieve that.

This doesn't add up      

And as I tried to warn last year, the nose is pretty short but “some here” tried to say no it will be like Maverick… This is the styling issue that could be very polarising in CE1 But will make a great “minivan with conventional doors”